The House version of the PROTECT IP Act is here—and it's bad.

Imagine a world in which any intellectual property holder can, without ever appearing before a judge or setting foot in a courtroom, shut down any website's online advertising programs and block access to credit card payments. The credit card processors and the advertising networks would be required to take quick action against the named website; only the filing of a “counter notification” by the website could get service restored.

It's the world envisioned by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in today's introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the US House of Representatives. This isn't some off-the-wall piece of legislation with no chance of passing, either; it's the House equivalent to the Senate's PROTECT IP Act, which would officially bring Internet censorship to the US as a matter of law.

Calling its plan a “market-based system to protect US customers and prevent US funding of sites dedicated to theft of US property,” the new bill gives broad powers to private actors. Any holder of intellectual property rights could simply send a letter to ad network operators like Google and to payment processors like MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal, demanding these companies cut off access to any site the IP holder names as an infringer.

The scheme is much like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) "takedown notices," in which a copyright holder can demand some piece of content be removed from sites like YouTube with a letter. The content will be removed unless the person who posted the content objects; at that point, the copyright holder can decide if it wants to take the person to court over the issue.

Here, though, the stakes are higher. Rather than requesting the takedown of certain hosted material, intellectual property owners can go directly for the jugular: marketing and revenue for the entire site. So long as the intellectual property holders include some “specific facts” supporting their infringement claim, ad networks and payment processors will have five days to cut off contact with the website in question.

The scheme is largely targeted at foreign websites which do not recognize US law, and which therefore will often refuse to comply with takedown requests. But the potential for abuse—even inadvertent abuse—here is astonishing, given the terrifically outsized stick with which content owners can now beat on suspected infringers.

Blockade

One thing private actors can't do under the new bill is actually block a site from the Internet, though it hardly matters, because the government has agreed to do it for them. The bill gives government lawyers the power to go to court and obtain an injunction against any foreign website based on a generally single-sided presentation to a judge. Once that happens, Internet providers have 5 days to “prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.”

The government can also go after anyone who builds a tool designed for the "circumvention or bypassing" of the Internet block. Such tools already exist as a result of the US government's ongoing campaign to seize Internet domain names it believes host infringing content; they can redirect visitors who enter the site's address to its new location. The government has already asked Web browser makers like Mozilla to remove access to these sorts of tools. Mozilla refused, so the new bill just tries to ban such tools completely. (Pointing your computer's browser to a foreign DNS server in order to view a less-censored Internet still appears to be legal.)

Search engines, too, are affected, with the duty to prevent the site in question “from being served as a direct hypertext link.” Payment processors and ad networks would also have to cut off the site.

Finally, and for good measure, Internet service providers and payment processors get the green light to simply block access to sites on their own volition—no content owner notification even needed. So long as they believe the site is “dedicated to the theft of US property,” Internet providers and payment processors can't be sued.

"Industry norms"

The House bill is shockingly sympathetic to a narrow subsection of business interests. For instance, buried deep in the back of the >70-page document is a requirement that the US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator prepare a study for Congress. That study should analyze “notorious foreign infringers” and attempt to quantify the “significant harm inflicted by notorious foreign infringers.” (Talk about assuming your conclusions before you start.)

The report, which is specifically charged to give weight to the views of content owners, requests a set of specific policy recommendations that might “encourage foreign businesses to adopt industry norms to promote the protection of intellectual property globally.” Should the bill pass, the US government would be explicitly charged with promoting private “industry norms”—not actual laws or treaties—around the world.

In the request for the report, we can also see the IP maximalist lobby preparing for its next move: shutting off access to US capital markets and preventing companies from "offering stock for sale to the public" in the US.

Call it what it is

Not all censorship is bad—but we need to have an honest discussion about when and how to deploy it, rather than wrapping an unprecedented set of censorship tools in meaningless terms like "rogue site," or by calling a key section of the new bill the "E-PARASITE Act."

You don't have to support piracy—and we don't—to see the many problems with this new approach. Just today, the RIAA submitted to the US government a list of "notorious markets." As part of that list, the RIAA included "cyberlockers" like MegaUpload, which are "notorious services" that "thumb their noses at international laws, all while pocketing significant advertising revenues from trafficking in free, unlicensed copyrighted materials."

It's not hard to imagine how long it would take before such sites--which certainly do host plenty of user-uploaded infringing content--are targeted under the new law. Yet they have a host of legal uses, and cyberlockers like RapidShare have been declared legal by both US and European courts.

Not surprisingly, the new bill is getting pushback from groups like NetCoalition, which counts Google, Yahoo, and small ISPs among its members. "As leading brands of the Internet, we strongly oppose offshore 'rogue' websites and share policymakers' goal of combating online infringement of copyrights and trademarks," said executive director Markham Erickson in a statement.

"However, we do not believe that the solution lies in regulating the Internet and comprising its stability and security. We do not believe that it is worth overturning a decade of settled law that has formed the legal foundation for all social media. And finally, we do not believe that it is worth restricting free speech or providing comfort to totalitarian regimes that seek to control and restrict the Internet freedoms of their own citizens."

Dozens of law professors have also claimed the original PROTECT IP Act, which contains most of the same ideas, is unconstitutional. But the drumbeat for some sort of censorship is growing louder.

The cases where it is not bad are so few that I cannot recall any in recent history. And any law that leads to censorship will inevitably be extended to any and all cases those whom the law was truly written for can think of.

Pryopizm wrote:

The irony, I bet, is that many of the supporters of this bill which regulates the hell out of the internet are the same people who actively oppose Net Neutrality.

There's no irony there. Both the opposition to net neutrality and pushing laws like this are actions in support of the corporate status quo, and to put said same corporations in a position of power over the populace for the sake of their bottom line.

The government can also go after anyone who builds a tool designed for the "circumvention or bypassing" of the Internet block. Such tools already exist as a result of the US government's ongoing campaign to seize Internet domain names it believes host infringing content; they can redirect visitors who enter the site's address to its new location. The government has already asked Web browser makers like Mozilla to remove access to these sorts of tools. Mozilla refused, so the new bill just tries to ban such tools completely.

Hmmmm, I wonder who the above text is referring to...

That being said, bring it on ... and since they want to up the Ante, set your calenders to 16 days from now.

There's no irony there. Both the opposition to net neutrality and pushing laws like this are actions in support of the corporate status quo, and to put said same corporations in a position of power over the populace for the sake of their bottom line.

Is this your opinion, or just the opinion you imagine these theoretical people have?

Does the bill actually state that ad content providers and CC processors need to listen to letters and notifications? Or is it literally, that you get the letter and shut down the services?

If this passes, who wants to shut down every government and bank website?

There are penalties for being wrong without acting in "good faith." You have to swear to be the rights holders and have to outline your case, etc. But yes, within 5 days of receipt, the ad networks and CC processors have to act.

The government can also go after anyone who builds a tool designed for the "circumvention or bypassing" of the Internet block. Such tools already exist as a result of the US government's ongoing campaign to seize Internet domain names

Seriously Ars, would it have killed you to mention which tool or who built the first tool to do that? TechDirt didnt shy away from that - cant really understand why no love here.

This bill clearly puts way too much power in the hands of those who profit from selling various IP, and at the expense of the concept of being innocent until proven guilty.

As far as NN goes, I can understand being opposed to the current neutered rules, but I can't fathom any reason why someone would be against the concept of NN unless they stood to profit by being able to stymie competitive services on their network. NN is good for consumers, innovation, and free speech. Why would anyone want Comcast to decide what internet based services you can or can't use versus just paying for your bandwidth and using whatever you like?

There's no irony there. Both the opposition to net neutrality and pushing laws like this are actions in support of the corporate status quo, and to put said same corporations in a position of power over the populace for the sake of their bottom line.

Is this your opinion, or just the opinion you imagine these theoretical people have?

Can you not see that opposition to NN and this proposed bill are very pro-corporation? It's very easy to see, and disingenuous to ignore it.

The "customers", in this case, are the **AAs, and the "market" is ultimately the force of the US Government (remember them, Teabaggers?) in case the target site resists.

The libertarian originators of that movement would completely agree that crony capitalism—where these content companies get control of the market through government force—is a fundamental problem with the current size/power of the federal government.

can't wait for this to pass, and than we will have the equivalent of internet wars starting up... will be interesting to see who kills whom...

I bet the biggest loser will be the US economy, but as I am not from there, it does not bother me... we need this and more draconian laws in order to get the citizenry to notice and eventually try to do something about it.

This bill, if passed, has a good chance of backfiring. Americans may be lazy but they want their bread and circuses and this bill threatens the latter. People will notice if Google, YouTube, etc. are gimped. Not to mention how pissed off Americans are about the state of the economy.

There's no irony there. Both the opposition to net neutrality and pushing laws like this are actions in support of the corporate status quo, and to put said same corporations in a position of power over the populace for the sake of their bottom line.

Is this your opinion, or just the opinion you imagine these theoretical people have?

Can you not see that opposition to NN and this proposed bill are very pro-corporation? It's very easy to see, and disingenuous to ignore it.

Other than corrupt politicians and the parties who directly stand to interest, who is it exactly that is both opposed to NN *and* in favor of this bill? The assumption seems to be:

1. People who oppose NN do so because they are pro-corporation2. This bill is pro-corporation3. Therefore, people who oppose NN are for this bill

Leaving aside the obvious logical holes here, I'm just doubting the overlap is as large as is being assumed.

I love it, the company complaining just needs to ask, but if Google/Visa/MC/etc decide to question it, they have to go through the courts, regardless of how insane and absurd it is.

I can't see this being abused at all.

No, not quite. The companies can ask and the ad networks and CC processors must act; but the -targets- (websites) can object if they want and have that action reversed. At that point, it can go to court. But the presumption is that complaints are valid enough to act on without further evidence or hearings.

The potential for gross abuse here terrifies me. Any copyright owner can put the screws to any website it feels is infringing without presenting any real evidence or proving their case before a judge. ISPs can even do this without so much as getting approval from the actual copyright owner. How do they even determine if the claim is being made by the real copyright owner? This gives corporations free reign to attack each others revenue streams at will. This nation is hurtling toward a corporate oligarchy where national interests ARE corporate interests and citizens are nothing more then "consumers".

There's no irony there. Both the opposition to net neutrality and pushing laws like this are actions in support of the corporate status quo, and to put said same corporations in a position of power over the populace for the sake of their bottom line.

Is this your opinion, or just the opinion you imagine these theoretical people have?

Can you not see that opposition to NN and this proposed bill are very pro-corporation? It's very easy to see, and disingenuous to ignore it.

Other than corrupt politicians and the parties who directly stand to interest, who is it exactly that is both opposed to NN *and* in favor of this bill? The assumption seems to be:

1. People who oppose NN do so because they are pro-corporation2. This bill is pro-corporation3. Therefore, people who oppose NN are for this bill

Leaving aside the obvious logical holes here, I'm just doubting the overlap is as large as is being assumed.

EDIT: Clarify

Replace "people" with "politicians" and it makes more sense. Informed people tend to make decisions on where they stand on issues through varied and nuanced weighing of different social, moral, and political belief structures. Politicians, on the other hand, make decisions based on a core subset of their political belief structures that are convenient at the time and work backwards, trying to form logical connections to whatever moral or social beliefs would sell their position and make them look less like a tool. It's political suicide to actually have nuanced convictions, but you have to appear to serving someone other than yourself.

I think a lot of "let's play" youtube gamers were really worried by this thing as it was. They were worried that since they're posting videos of themselves playing through a copyrighted video game, they could get slapped with court papers.

But, screw that ... just chuck a big rock in the pond. Let's not worry what the ripple effect hits.

This nation is hurtling toward a corporate oligarchy where national interests ARE corporate interests and citizens are nothing more then "consumers".

Wait, this ISN'T already the case? I've been going on the assumption for years thinking that was the case. Let's face it, our government is a charade. We are run by corporations and the only thing that they care about is getting more money for themselves.

The tunnel vision here is staggering. People pushing ideas like this as serious proposals should be exposed and have there faces plastered in public with a speech bubble explaining the future they are trying to build for us all to live in. This probably/hopefully won't go anywhere but one day something equally bad will. If people were aware they would be held accountable to the human race for ideas like this, maybe it would give them pause. Maybe not. Maybe they only see their own interests and are incapable of seeing further than that.